AUSTIN - Texas officials vowed Friday to make protecting religious liberty "the next fight" after the U.S. Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide, signaling the deeply conservative state's yearslong battle over gay rights would not end quickly.

In moves that appeared aimed more at reassuring their Christian conservative base than blocking the high court's ruling, Gov. Greg Abbott ordered state agencies not to punish supporters of traditional unions and Attorney General Ken Paxton held off on giving county clerks the "guidance" on issuing marriage licenses he had promised.

Underscoring the finality of the high court's ruling, clerks in Texas' biggest counties ignored Paxton's urging and issued hundreds of marriage licenses, while some judges waived the state's 72-hour waiting period for those who wished to be married immediately.

Unable to stop the marriages, Abbott focused on deriding the justices as activists and issuing a directive to state agencies not to take "adverse action" against anyone based on an "act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief." He said that included any agency decision, such as granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, contracting, licensing and law enforcement.

Protections such as the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act "will be tested by some who seek to silence and marginalize those whose conscience will not allow them to participate in or endorse marriages that are incompatible with their religious beliefs," Abbott predicted.

Some initially thought the directive would open the door to agencies withholding benefits for gay couples, but an Abbott spokesman later said it "does not authorize or order state agencies to deny benefits to same-sex couples."

"The directive ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs," added the spokesman, John Wittman.

Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said she was "very relieved" at Abbott's clarification because her initial reading of the directive was that it would authorize government workers to use their personal religious beliefs to avoid complying with the Supreme Court ruling.

She added the Constitution already prevents the government from discriminating based on religion. If the state does, she said, "I hope somebody will call the ACLU."

Agencies spent Friday trying to figure out the directive.

Translator

To read this article in one of Houston's most-spoken languages, click on the button below.

On March 6, Texas voters will decide who will carry the Democratic party's mantle into the battle for governor and a slew of other statewide offices. Click here for full coverage of the primary elections. Find our voters guide here.

The Texas Department of Agriculture, Department of Public Safety and General Land Office said they had lawyers working on determining how their work would be affected.

A Texas Commission on Environmental Quality spokesman said the directive "shouldn't change the way we do business, as RFRA and the state and federal Constitutional protections have existed for a long time."

A spokesman for the Health and Human Services Commission said it was seeking input from the office of Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The state's top lawyer issued his own statement hitting many of the same notes as Abbott.

"Our guiding principle should be to protect people who want to live, work and raise their families in accordance with their religious faith," said Paxton, called who religious liberty "the next fight" and said his office would shortly address questions "about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace."

Paxton also compared Friday's ruling to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, hinting that the marriage fight could follow the same path as the abortion battle. Although the procedure was declared legal, Republicans in recent years have sought to limit it.

One such proposal that could remain a flashpoint is a bill by GOP Rep. Scott Sanford of McKinney to shield faith-based welfare agencies that do not allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The measure died in this year's legislative session.

The Texans who challenged the state's gay marriage ban acknowledged that the fight was not over, with lawyer Daniel McNeel "Neel" Lane citing the recent, racially motivated shooting in Charleston, S.C., as evidence of the "constant battle" against discrimination.

"This decision is another stepping stone in the march toward true equality," Lane said.

Lane added that he respects the opinion of those who oppose same-sex marriage, but he issued a warning to state officials who try to impede the new law of the land.

"When you are a state official, you swear an oath to protect the laws of the state of Texas," the lawyer said. "There are consequences if you deny constitutional rights to citizens in your state, and there will be lawyers who will hold you to that oath."

Several legal scholars said that regardless of personal beliefs, state officials cannot stop gay marriage in the face of the Supreme Court ruling.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said Abbott's directive appeared to simply be a statement of his opinion that may not have any legally binding power.

"I don't know what it means," Tobias said. "It's certainly very broad and seems very pointed, but I don't know whether it's a threat or protection or what it is."

Another law professor who read the directive agreed that its intentions seemed unclear.

For Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, however, the thing to watch will be how social conservatives "adjust to this new reality that ain't going away."

"It's not surprising that the day of the decision, Abbott would say, 'I'm outraged.' I think the real question is what is he going to be saying a week or two weeks from now."